The Council of the Judiciary approves the psychological test for judges

The Plenary of the Judiciary Council unanimously approved the Methodology for the Execution of the Psychological Testing Phase of the Public Merit and Opposition Competition, Citizen Challenge, and Social Control, for the Selection and Appointment of the Judges of the National Court of Justice. The decision is contained in Resolution 227-2026, adopted in Extraordinary Session No. 161-2026 on October 28, 2026, and published in the Sixth Supplement of the Official Registry No. 400, on Thursday, October 29, 2026, in the Judicial Function and Indigenous Justice section (p. 5). With this step, one of the phases that condition the progress of the judicial renewal is now enabled.

The methodology is issued under article 181 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador and article 264, number 10, of the Organic Code of the Judicial Function, and develops the general line established by the Competition Regulations, issued via Resolution 109-2026, of July 3, 2026. Furthermore, it is articulated with the Protocol for the Protection of Personal Data of the competition, approved by Resolution 197-2026, of September 22, 2026. The instrument and its two annexes were validated by the General Directorate with Memorandum No. CJ-DG-2026-7767-M, of October 28, 2026, and have a technical report from the National Directorate of Human Talent (Report No. CJ-DNTH-SA-2026-1425).

The resolution bears the signature of the president of the Judiciary Council, Mercedes Johanna Caicedo Aldaz, and the members Magaly Camila Ruiz Cajas, Alfredo Juvenal Cuadros Añazco, Damián Alberto Larco Guamán, and Fabián Plinio Fabara Gallardo; it is certified by the general secretary Marco Antonio Cárdenas Chum.

A one-hour test and a clinical interview

The phase is applied only to those who passed the trust exam and consists of two activities: a psychometric test and an individual interview, structured or semi-structured. Out of the total planned instruments, only one will be applied to all applicants, chosen by the evaluator according to technical criteria, and its selection must be notified before the start of the stage:

• MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), with dichotomous response items and validity and clinical scales.
• PAI (Personality Assessment Inventory), consisting of 344 items on a four-point Likert scale.
• MCMI-IV (Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory), consisting of 195 items and base rate scores.

The test will last 60 minutes and the in-person interview between 30 and 45 minutes, in a controlled environment, at a single location and in individual spaces, simultaneously by groups. Applicants must arrive 60 minutes in advance for identity accreditation, without companions or private security personnel; the entry and use of mobile phones, smartwatches, tablets, headphones, or physical or digital documents are prohibited. Anyone who does not arrive at the scheduled time will not be allowed to enter, in accordance with article 32 of Resolution 109-2026.

Five functional axes and the suitability filter

The clinical assessment is organized into five functional axes: judgment and sense of reality; emotional regulation and impulse control; interpersonal relationships and empathy; autonomy and decision-making; and clinical stability and coping capacity. Diagnostic criteria are interpreted according to the DSM-5-TR and the ICD-10, and the ruling must be technically justified.

The status of “suitable” or “not suitable” will not be determined solely by the test result: it requires technical convergence between the psychometric finding and its corroboration in the interview. Any “not suitable” ruling must demonstrate that the detected alterations create a functional impediment and a risk to the exercise of jurisdictional functions. The determination will be final, without reconsideration, reclassification, or clinical re-evaluation.

Sensitive data, custody, and deadlines

As these are mental health data, processing requires prior, free, specific, and explicit informed consent, signed during the application stage. Applicants may exercise their rights of access, rectification, updating, erasure, opposition, portability, and the right not to be subject to decisions based solely on automated assessments.

• Conservation of reports and files: seven years, under the custody of the Judiciary Council.
• Notification of security incidents by the data processor: maximum two days.
• Notice to the data protection authority: five days; to the affected applicants: three days.
• Public publication: only the list of applicants qualified as suitable, with an express prohibition on disseminating clinical results, tests applied, or scores.

Responsible parties and continuity of the process

Execution is the responsibility of the General Directorate and the national directorates of Human Talent, Information and Communication Technologies, Social Communication, and Administrative Affairs. The National Directorate of Human Talent administers the Integral Human Talent System of the Judicial Function (SITHFUJ), while the evaluator—a contracted legal entity—and its team of clinical psychology professionals handle the application of the instruments and the individual reports.

Once this stage is closed, Human Talent will prepare a technical report with the list of suitable and unsuitable candidates; the General Directorate will validate it, and the Plenary will approve it as the final report, which results in the automatic preclusion of the phase. The Plenary will then order the exclusion of those who did not pass and the opening of the next phase of the competition.

The relevance of the resolution is twofold: it turns psychological suitability into a verifiable technical filter, using standardized instruments and reasoned opinions, and establishes for the first time a detailed regime of custody and confidentiality for the health data of the applicants. The credibility of the process through which the National Court of Justice will be partially renewed depends on that balance.

Source: Official Registry, Sixth Supplement No. 400, Thursday, October 29, 2026, Judicial Function and Indigenous Justice, p. 5 (official reference: Resolution 227-2026).